Saturday, June 24, 2006

I've commented on this briefly in the past, but I am in the middle of a discussion where its relevant, so I wanted to go into some more detail about it. The site I link at the top of this provides and excellent base interpretation of this parable, and while it is by no means the only lesson Jesus gave us, it is one of the most direct and important. Before going in, we need to point out that when Jesus speaks, especially in the 4 Gospels of His life, he uses example VERY specifically. When he omits something in one portion that is explicitly stated elsewhere, that omission is important. Likewise, when he specifically includes something that is omitted elsewhere, the inclusion is very important.

From Luke ...

30. Jesus replied and said, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went off leaving him half dead.

31. "And by chance a certain priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

32. "And likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.

33. "But a certain Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion,

34. "and came to him, and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

35. "And on the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return, I will repay you.'

This is one of Jesus' most compelling lessons. In it, He combines much of His teaching, His philosophy, and he makes the point that action speaks louder than words, that acts have supremacy over belief or faith. Jesus chose his examples very carefully, and the three men in this parable are not randomly chosen by any stretch. The choice of a priest and a Levite as the first two men is telling because both are men of the Book, closely related to Temple life, to the belief and faith of Jesus time. The choice of the Samaritan complements the first two, by providing Jesus with a man not of the Book, not part of Temple life, not part of the Hebrew society at all, an outsider who is quite literally a Heathen. The Samaritan does not believe what Jesus does, has not learned what Jesus has, and does not worship as Jesus does, and he is chosen by Jesus for this parable precisely because of those qualities.

In the story, the priest and the Levite walk by the fallen stranger, refusing to help him. By excluding them as his neighbour, Jesus clearly tells us that faith is meaningless without proper action. Without the reality of acts, the abstractness of faith is meaningless. The faith of the priest is not enough to make him a neighbour in Christ. The Samaritan, on the other hand, stops to help the fallen stranger, spending his own money without repayment, using his own time to make arrangements. By declaring the Samaritan a neighbour in Christ, Jesus shows us that it is his acts which promote him to that level, and nothing else.

If Jesus had meant to say that faith and acts go hand in hand, then the third man in his example would have been a pious priest or Levite who understood the value of helping others. Jesus would have chosen someone of the book to demonstrate that acting rightly isn't sufficient ... thinking rightly is also required. But Jesus hasn't done that here ... in fact, He has down the opposite. He has elevated someone considered NOT of the faith to the status if neighbour in Christ, while specifically chastising people of the faith for not behaving in a faithful manner.

In the Good Samaritan, Jesus sends us a clear message that it is through helping the stranger who has fallen among thieves that we become a neighbour in Christ. We don't do it through faith, we don't do it through belief, we do it through simply helping the stranger who has fallen among thieves. His characters were clear, the story direct and compelling, and yet people seem to ignore the central point ... believe whatever you want, but if you do everything you can to help that man, fallen among thieves, then, and only then, you WILL be a neighbour in Christ. I am happy to take Jesus at his word, that its about helping the man who has fallen among thieves, and nothing more.

I've been browsing through the Archives over at Modern Mechanix this morning and there are a couple of posts from the past I want to highlight quickly. So, in honour of that …

$7,000,000,000 for door-to-door salesman is a wonderful article that could only have been written in the 50's. I suppose today's brave new world of direct sales are Internet e-commerce sites … the most direct way to direct market these days. Fascinating to see chain letters and pyramid schemes touted here as excellent business plans, but equally fascinating to see the genesis of the home sales party and other unique ideas.

You don't need a ton of technical details to echo the words of the writers of Modern Mechanix on this one … "Sounds great, what could possibly go wrong?"

Build Your Own Dive Helmet - This is one of those stories that comes from a different time. In today's world, the liability issues of this sort of thing would have killed this article faster than you can imagine. Like the home chemistry set, the wood burning kit, and the pocket size Uranium kit this is one of those articles that just couldn't be published in today's world. Love the technical details though … anyone wanna try?

The prophylactic-toothbrush - Just a quick example that sexual innuendo in advertising is hardly a product of today's society. We may be more blunt about it, but this is pretty darned suggestive, really .

And finally, the New Heath Kit Personal Computers is an excellent piece on what probably represents the first true, fully functional PC to be sold. Even in today's $$, the process listed aren't cheap, and given that the ad is from 1977, they are pretty pricey pieces of kit. Having said that, the H11 16-bit system was truly revolutionary for the day, essentially a full "mini-computer" on the desktop. This is pointed out near the end of the write up in geek-speak … "DEC PDP-11 software is included." PDP-11 was still in business use a decade later on mini-computers in a variety of industry and educational settings, and at the time represented a VERY powerful operating system. And on top pf all that, you have a choice of paper tape or the ultra high-tech cassette tape deck (still in development, you'll note, lol) for data storage. Its also worth noting that the internal storage set of this high-end system was 20Kb … far less than the 5MB hard disk I wrote about earlier. As late as this ad in 1977, a 5MB hard disk was still a pretty cool, and pretty high-end, piece of kit.

The irony, ofc, is that non-geeks don't even REALLY get the joke, lol.

I’ve been browsing through the Archives over at Modern Mechanix this morning and there are a couple of posts from the past I want to highlight quickly. So, in honour of that …

$7,000,000,000 for door-to-door salesman is a wonderful article that could only have been written in the 50’s. I suppose today’s brave new world of direct sales are Internet e-commerce sites … the most direct way to direct market these days. Fascinating to see chain letters and pyramid schemes touted here as excellent business plans, but equally fascinating to see the genesis of the home sales party and other unique ideas.

You don’t need a ton of technical details to echo the words of the writers of Modern Mechanix on this one … “Sounds great, what could possibly go wrong?”

Build Your Own Dive Helmet - This is one of those stories that comes from a different time. In today’s world, the liability issues of this sort of thing would have killed this article faster than you can imagine. Like the home chemistry set, the wood burning kit, and the pocket size Uranium kit this is one of those articles that just couldn’t be published in today’s world. Love the technical details though … anyone wanna try?

The prophylactic-toothbrush - Just a quick example that sexual innuendo in advertising is hardly a product of today’s society. We may be more blunt about it, but this is pretty darned suggestive, really .

And finally, the New Heath Kit Personal Computers is an excellent piece on what probably represents the first true, fully functional PC to be sold. Even in today’s $$, the process listed aren’t cheap, and given that the ad is from 1977, they are pretty pricey pieces of kit. Having said that, the H11 16-bit system was truly revolutionary for the day, essentially a full “mini-computer” on the desktop. This is pointed out near the end of the write up in geek-speak … “DEC PDP-11 software is included.” PDP-11 was still in business use a decade later on mini-computers in a variety of industry and educational settings, and at the time represented a VERY powerful operating system. And on top pf all that, you have a choice of paper tape or the ultra high-tech cassette tape deck (still in development, you’ll note, lol) for data storage. Its also worth noting that the internal storage set of this high-end system was 20Kb … far less than the 5MB hard disk I wrote about earlier. As late as this ad in 1977, a 5MB hard disk was still a pretty cool, and pretty high-end, piece of kit.

The irony, ofc, is that non-geeks don’t even REALLY get the joke, lol.

License

Modern Mechanix » 1956: World’s First Hard Drive (5MB)In many ways, this represents the birth of modern computing as much as the first micro-processor, though its hard to see a resemblance between this hulking behemoth and the 200gb 3.5″ 1/4 height drive in your computer, but functionally speaking, this hard drive is the original progenitor of yours.

A few things struck me in this, and made me chuckle. The awe over “5,000,000 characters” (less than 5mb really) is a bit quaint from today’s perspective, but in an era where you measured storage capacity in the bytes of vacuum tubes, it represents a truly monstrous storage capacity. As well, the notion of “Random Access Memory Accounting” or RAMAC is fundamental to everything we do in computers today, and represents a wholly new way of doing things over the sequential access of tape, or the hard-wiring of tubes and cables. While it seems a simple idea today, the technical challenges involved with essentially being able to access any of 5 million data bytes at any time are daunting … even after the challenge of actually STORING the information … just finding it again was a huge technical issue. The RAM memory chips, the way your hard drive works, the very way you compute, is based this notion of RAMAC.

Even the 1200rpm spin rate is impressive given the context. In today’s world of super high speed access to 300gb of data at a time, the disk platters spin in the 7200rpm range for a decent drive. For the first device, constructed half a century ago, 1200rpm seems a very high platter speed … shame the article doesn’t translate that to a data transfer rate, lol.

Friday, June 23, 2006

Now this is a SERIOUSLY cool car from Audi. Its a concept car, so the chances of it ever being made are slim to none, but the idea is very cool. Eventually, it seems inevitable that we will move to electric vehicles … as battery costs go down, and generation capacities go up, there seems very little down side, especially if efforts are made to make more environmentally sounds batteries. But at the same time, sports cars are NEVER about practicality, and this one likely wouldn’t be either. But it would still be cool to cruise in …

There’s a potential controversy brewing Calgary’s Catholic community. For several decades now, the Calgary Seperate school board, essentially a Catholic organization, has used casinos and bingos as a way of fundraising for needed school supplies and events. Prior to the current noise made by Calgary’s Bishop Fred Henry, the Catholic hierarchy in Calgary to not notice, or not care, that Catholic schools were fundraising using an addictive activity that is seriously frowned upon by the Catholic Church.

There are issues where I take exception Bishop Henry’s view, and I’ve expressed that publically a few times through letters to the editor. But in most cases, he is a man who sticks to a well defined principle for his views, and that shows through here, IMO.Now, I am someone who enjoys the odd game of blackjack or poker, but I would never presume to think I was being Christian while I was doing it. What surprises me most about this is that its taken so long to come to a head … gambling didn’t become a sinful activity yesterday, and for many years, the Catholic community in Calgary has been using the wages of that sin.

What surprises me is that the Catholic schools ever came up with this idea in the first place. The arguement against the Bishop is that the revenue earned from gambling is required for the efficient running of the schools, and its hard to argue with the numbers. The Bishop isn’t handing out wads of cash to offset the casinos he says should stop, so perhaps there’s a valid concern about what to do without the ill-gotten gains. But thats just it … I can’t imagine how they got to this point of depending on gambling money to survive.

When that decision was made to do casinos and bingos, how was it made? What moral principle allowed the church-run schools to decide that gambling was a good revenue generater? I can’t imagine the same thing happening with other immoral things … can anyone else see the church deciding to sell alchohol, or run a strip club, to generate cash? I can’t, and I wonder how a group of Catholics decided that gambling was a proper way to raise funds for their children’s education.

I gotta say, Bishop Henry is bang on for this one. The startling thing is that he had to say anything at all and that people are fighting it. Its as if someone were saying to the Pope “but we don’t care about your moral issues with contraception, its required.” Its the job of non-Catholics to point that out, IMO … a Catholic is beholden to their Pope or Bishop to come up with a better excuse than mamon. “I needed the money” strikes me as an especially poor justification for profiting from sin, especially when talking about the education of children.

In his seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Thomas Kuhn advances the notion that true advances in science do not come so much through the steady application of the scientific method, but rather through warring paradigms. While Kuhn has a very good understanding of the process of science, and the method of science, he is also able to step beyond that to see where science breaks its own rules.

The notion of a paradigm is perhaps a little tricky, but when we think of it in terms of a ‘worldview’ then perhaps its easier. In common parlance, our paradigm for life could be said to be the sum total of our views about life, religion, and the world around us. In Kuhn’s specific usage, a scientific paradigm represents the worldview that emerges from accepting the prevailing theories of the paradigm.

Newton’s mechanics, built upon the work of Galileo, Copernicus, and Leibniz formed the basis of a paradigm that science operated under for several centuries - the paradigm of the clockwork universe. In this paradigm, it was commonly held that it was possible to predict the state of the universe at any given time, based solely on some start condition, and a thorough understanding of the laws of nature. The theology of Deism rises from this notion of a mechanical universe, set in motion once by the hand of God, and left to run by law.

The Newtonian paradigm served the world very well for centuries. It allowed us to calculate the orbit of the planets with precision, and to redraw the universe around us. It allowed us to fire ballistic cannon shells with an accuracy not dreamed of prior to Newtonian physics. It finally allowed us to send men to the moon. But as useful as Newton’s mechanics are, we know today they are, simply put, wrong. While they work very well for the narrow range of experience grouped around the confines of human consciousness (ie, at human comprehensible speeds, and distances, and sizes), as we probed deeper and deeper into the universe, it became clear that Newton was only ‘right’ for a subset of the universe, and even ,the best you could say is he was ‘estimating’ true states.

With the the newly emerging theories of relativity and quantum mechanics in the early 20th century, we saw new paradigms emerge to replace the old Newtonian worldview. Einstein’s relativity laid the boots to any notion of a fixed and static universe, a universe that was common to all. Instead, the Einstinian worldview shows a world that is only fixed and static from a given perspective, and all other perspectives will see the world in different ways. In the Einstinian model, this goes well beyond the illusion of just ’seeing’ something different … as objects change their frame of reference, fundamental characteristics like mass change. That’s a clear and present danger to the Newtonian worldview, but the fact remains, when we talk abut super massive objects, or objects travelling close to the speed of light, Newton’s mechanics do us no good at all. If the moon landing had been conducted at .75C instead of well under than .001C, the Newtonian calculations that allowed the astronauts to safely arrive at the moon would have been out by a significant portion. Accelerate again up to .99C and those calculations are so far off you aren’t even in the same neighbourhood as the moon anymore. So while Newton’s paradigm worked fine for the moon landings, that’s only because they travelled VERY slowly, by universal terms.

You’d think that when Einstein was able to demonstrate the superiority of his answers for all conditions and frames of reference, The old Newtonian worldview would have collapsed. Instead, Einstein was largely ridiculed for suggesting the notion that characteristics like mass might not be constant. That idea was so anathema to the Newtonian worldview (to Newton, mass is a fundamentally unalterable characteristic … it IS a constant) that Einstein was ridiculed for for suggesting it might not be the case. It wasn’t until new, younger scientists began to take up Einstein’s mantel that the prevailing paradigm in science changed. But that change came largely through death and replacement, rather than the acceptance of a better idea. Many of Einstein’s seniors and contemporaries were unable to make the jump to the new paradigm of relativity.

And the irony is that as Einstein was himself the father of one revolution in paradigm, he was unable to see past his own prejudice in another. One of the most famous quotes about quantum mechanics is Einstein’s exclamation “God does not play dice!” in response to the notion of uncertainty in quantum values. Einstein, who was the author of a revolution in thinking in one area of science, was unable to abandon his paradigms in other areas to embrace the emerging ideas. In fact, God does play dice, and he often hides the results from us. The paradigm of quantum uncertainty is now an accepted part of science, even though it was fiercely opposed and ridiculed by the best minds of the day when it was first proposed.

I bring all this up by way of introduction because I tend to think Kuhn is right for more than just science. He has compelling examples of how science clings to its old paradigms until the last possible moment, and even beyond in some cases. He shows how we have always had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the era of a round world instead of a flat one, or an orderly, mechanical universe instead of a superstitious and mythical one. He shows how its not until our old scientific paradigms become simply untenable that we are truly willing examine and look at new ones.

And I see the same thing in the rest of life, without the clear divisions and answers of science. For centuries now, we’ve operated under the political paradigm of the nation-state. Looking at the world around us, it seems fairly clear the paradigm isn’t what its cracked up to be. Its hard to look at today’s world and say we have a healthy, viable political paradigm. With conflict around the globe, military expansionism pitting brother against brother, and the exploitation of the third world by the first, it seems clear to me at least that the paradigm of the nation-state is crumbling at the edges. Like all other paradigms, we continue to cling to our old beliefs, unable to see any other way of behaving. Like the dinosaurs who ridiculed Einstein, we are unable to see past our own prejudices to a different way.

For me, I’ve always things from a global perspective. The lines that represent borders on the map we saw in school don’t exist in the real world … pictures from Apollo prove that. Nation-states, and the arbitrary borders we draw around them are just that, arbitrary creations of power designed to horde resources and power for a small section of the population while depriving the rest of the world of the same resources. The attitude of helping your local community first is admirable to a point, but when you help your neighbours to the detriment of the neighbours farther away, in the end no one wins.

Its time we started thinking with a global paradigm, IMO. Its hard for people to see past the prejudice of our prevailing paradigm … we can’t even really conceive of a world that isn’t organized by nation-state. Even the language of change is laced with old assumptions … ‘we must cede national power to an international organization.’ Such complaints are based in the notion that national power was based on anything more than brutal enforcement of arbitrarily draw borders … if you start from the notion that such land and resource grabs, for the benefit of only one nation instead of humanity as a whole, are inherently, morally wrong, then complaints like that disappear. Rather that ‘ceding national power’ to someone else, we are actually returning ownership of the entire globe to all humanity.

Its time to stop thinking locally and start thinking globally. The African child facing civil war in Congo is as much my brother as the person living next door to me. Its time our paradigm and worldview reflected that reality, IMO.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

This is a small wetland in southern Alberta on a recent beautiful day. Trees have always fascinated me, and while I have no idea how old this particular tree is, in general trees have a lifespan that really has no relation to us mere mortals. Even though these trees look fairly 'young' in the terms of a tree, young can still mean 50 or 100 years old. Even a 200 year old tree isn't 'old' in tree terms.

And that's one of the aspects of treeness that has always fascinated me. Some of the oldest trees on record are truly staggering in ages. There are two pine trees in Alberta that are well over 1000 years old, living creatures who first began life here before the 11th century.

But even a millenium isn't "old" for a tree. The oldest on record are over 4000 years old, and there are many that are 2000 or 3000 years old. I know trees aren't sentient beings, so people don't generally think of them as 'creatures' as such, but they are living things that have stood watch over the rise and fall of entire civilisations. Its little wonder, to me, that human history is full of folk stories about forests and trees.

Ultimately I find it humbling when you put some of these ages into context. There's a bristlecone pine in Methusela CA that was a healthy tree when Abraham walked the middle east, and there are several giant sequoias nearby that were saplings as Moses freed the slaves from Egypt. By the time Buddha, or Jesus came to earth, these were already ancient creatures towering over California.

As humans, we tend to think that time is measured in minutes, and hours and days. When we think long term, we think in terms of months, or years, or maybe even decades. But its always worth remembering that there are creatures around who were here long before we were, and will out live us by many times, creatures who measure their lives not in years or even centuries, but in millenia. For me, anyway, its always worth acknowledging that not all of life, or the universe, operates on a human scale.

In honour of the summer solstice, I thought I’d share some shots of Stonehenge I was able to take at Sunset a few years ago. Now, unfortunately, these weren’t done on the solstice (late November if I remember correctly), but that’s not really relevant anymore. When it was built 4000-5000 years ago, the arrangement of the stones on the solstices and the equinoxes was significant. But due to precession of the earth, the arrangement is no longer astronomically significant on the solstice.

Still, it seems likely that sighting of the setting or rising sun through the standing stones likely would have been a key way of determining the date and the seasonal changes for druidic worshippers thousands of years ago. Enjoy the pictures, and enjoy the first day of summer …

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

This is an interesting story from Manitoba today. The central issue is really about how you select players for a hockey team, and there’s a secondary question about whether school athletics are perhaps different from community athletics.

The point of the girls seems a fair one … their skill level is high enough to play on the school’s most elite squad, and its not their problem that team happens to be called the “boys” team. That they be excluded from playing on that team based on their gender is a CLEAR case of sex discrimination, and its very hard to argue otherwise. Especially given that the motto of sport has ALWAYS been ‘faster, higher, stronger’ to exclude those who qualify on those grounds, based on sex, seems clearly offside to me.

Arguments from the other side hardly seem persuasive to me. One of the main arguments against the girls is that they should play on the girls team to help develop girls talent. “You’re more interested in what’s best for you than what’s best for the team,” the opposing lawyer said while cross examining one of the girls, but no one would consider suggesting that a talented boy stay on a lower ranked team to help develop the talent of less talented players … no one begrudges that boy the ambition to be, and to play with, the best players in his age group.

But I do think there is a larger issue here as well, and that is the difference between school athletics and community athletics. In the community sphere, athletics is a ruthless place where the best rise to the top and the rest are discarded … 99% of boys playing midget and bantam and pee-wee hockey in Canada will find that out, as 1% or less actually rise to the top. There is certainly an argument that perhaps school athletics can and should serve a different need than that of strict competitiveness, being more inclusive and teaching sport as a lifestyle feature instead of a competitive endeavor.

One key factor for me, something I don’t know about this particular case, is whether the girls are prevented from playing for the top level community team. It sounds like they ARE allowed to play on the boys community teams, but it may bit be as simple as that … if the choice is between playing for a school team OR a community team, then the school may lose out on good hockey players. If the girls are allowed to play on outside teams as well as the school team, then I see no foul with keeping them on the girls team at school to promote girls hockey … the other female players will benefit from the experience they bring from the boys game, IMO. But if its a case of playing for the school team OR a community team, the school should be looking for the best players they can, and prevent quality players from suiting up.

The school needs to decide is their athletics program is about inclusion, or about competitive sports. In this case, the two aren’t compatible, and its an either/or proposition, IMO.

License

The War Room is one of my favorite places to go for political gossip, especially regarding whats going on inside the halls of US power. This was a fascinating look at what may happen with the Scooter Libby prosecution in the future, and it raises an interesting question for me. Does the fact of a pardon change the fact of a criminal trial?

Lets say, for the sake of argument, Bush chooses to pardon Libby for ‘any and all crimes he is, or may be, charged with in relation to Fitzgerald’s probe’ this fall, before the scheduled start of his trial. Does that pardon necessarily preclude holdings the trial? The existence of a pardon doesn’t change the fact that a trial took place, and it is NOT the same thing as pleading the 5th Amendment against self incrimination. So if someone is pardoned in advance of a trial, I don’t see why that means a trial won’t be held.

It seems to me that the pardon does nothing to avoid a trial. You can’t pardon someone until they are found guilty of something, and without a trial, no one can be found guilty. As such, if Bush issues a pardon and then no trial is held, how can one say a pardon was issued when there was no crime to pardon? The existence of the pardon in advance has no bearing on the outcome of a trial, and as such the granting of that pardon should not preclude the holding of a trial. And given the fact that without a guilty verdict, there is nothing for which to pardon someone, it seems logically impossible t pardon someone before a trial is held.

I do “get” the notion of pardoning for crimes they MIGHT be found guilty of, but my point is that doesn’t have any bearing on the determination of that guilt. It determines how the person will be treated after the verdict, and how punishment will unfold, but it has no bearing on whether the facts support a guilty verdict or not. Some might say that without punishment, the trial has no meaning, but discovering the truth of a situation has meaning in and of itself, even if you can’t do anything about it. And in this case, determining the truth around Scooter Libby’s involvement in all this has value in and of itself, even if punishing Libby (or exonerating him) isn’t part of the deal.

So I am curious if anyone can answer whether a pardon in advance will make it impossible to have a trial, and if so, what the legal principle behind that is? It seems to me, if the point of the legal process is to determine the truth of what happened in a situation, to determine the facts based on evidence and testimony, then the existence of a pardon is really immaterial to that process. If the legal system is about blaming people for things and then punishing them, perhaps a pardon does have meaning for the trial, but that’s a VERY narrow definition of what the legal system is trying to do, IMO. It seems to me that most people expect a trial to shed some light on what actually happened, and they expect that evidence presented will determine the facts and truth of a situation. Given that, the existence of a pardon for one of the participants at trial seems irrelevant, at least until the sentencing phase, lol.

Monday, June 19, 2006

… Things have been a bit lax around here of late. I’ve been doing some travelling before I get into long working hours later this month, and also been spending some time setting up my new webserver at www.steeletech.info … its still under construction, so for the next week or two, you may find it acting weird, but eventually it will be the final new home of this blog, under my complete control now.